Over the last few weeks I have been making the point on Twitter and to television audiences that Europe empowered Putin to invade Ukraine by becoming dependent on him for energy.
You remind me of the one eyed man in the land of the blind, Michael.
I bought five copies of your book "Apocalypse Never" and gave four to some of my very well educated friends.
Seems even well educated people can become blind to reality.
Only one of my friends read your book from front to back and agreed with me that your book contains information that should be shouted from the roof tops of modern college and university campuses.
Back in the 70s I worked for a mid-sized newspaper in Maine and wrote more than a score of articles about the hot topic of the day . . . our energy "crisis."
My managing editor was a fellow who exchanged the top position at Philadelphia's major daily for the more measured pace at the Bangor Daily News. He became a powerful force in terms of promoting in depth reporting in Maine.
Thus, he had convinced our publisher to let me take two months off from my normal duties to cover the latest crisis du jour.
I learned back then much of the information you are reporting today.
Like you, I started off as a young man worried about how polluted were the once pristine rivers and crystal clear skies in Maine.
I am now an old man who worries about the foibles that have overtaken our nation.
But I am glad to see a revival of voices in the wilderness. I pray that such voices will grow more powerful, Michael.
At some point we lost focus on reducing pollution, note 2 years and billions of tons of useless Covid trash, and became focused on externalities and hysterical fear of worst case scenarios not remotely based in reality while ignoring the very real and solvable crises impacting our environment and oceans.
I remember watching An Inconvenient Truth in my early 20’s when it came out and lamenting these people hijacked our very real pollution and air quality concerns yo create a tool of fear that was simply nonsense.
The best thing we can do is tell everyone to go watch that movie and compare to real world outcomes over the last 17 years. Nothing predicted has come close to happening. The politicians that demand our compliance buy beachfront homes. The billionaires that scold us for our SUVs continue to fly their private jets around the globe, and fuel their mega yachts with gas.
What saddens me is the drop in focus on pollution and efficiency that has been replaced by insane political “climate” stupidity.
Anyone who has ever traveled to a poor country can see nothing is worse for the environment and people than poverty.
NCmom...I think one might expand that thought some...that since we evolved living in the world there was a time when our presence was not associated with poverty...perhaps meagerness, but all animals struggled.....and that historically cannot be called poverty, just how it was. What makes poverty? Is poverty when you are living in such a way that degrades the land around you in an unsustainable way? If so modern culture is mostly a poverty, even on the concept of 'garbage produced' alone. Is poverty dirt floors? (I think not necessarily) Is poverty living with your grandparents? (I think certainly not)
Is poverty not having a car (Hell no)...so, tell me, what is poverty? Isnt it when people are dependant on sources of income that have been removed, such as a farmer whose fields are burnt? Or denied a job because you are unvaxxed? Or anyone who is so obsessed about the plight of the world, they can hardly step away from the screen, such as myself...this all is a poverty, and we can end it with resolve to become self sufficient and wean ourselves away from the spectacle. It's been fun, don't get me wrong, but it's time to turn away from all this poverty.
Ideological musings and semantics gymnastics don’t solve problems. Redefining poverty doesn’t change that poorer people create more pollution in their daily lives simply trying to survive. Ideological musings are nothing more than that - ignoring reality and abdicating responsibility to improve reality by living in a fantasy world in one’s own head.
You redefining poverty in your own head has absolutely zero impact on poor people, improving our environment, or conserving nature.
It is how people convince themselves men give birth, or the way to fight racism is with more of it, or the way to expand opportunity to less advantaged kids is to remove all expectations and opportunities to learn how to accomplish something for themselves. It’s how academics get replaced with disproven ideological theories and we have a country masking toddlers even when it’s demonstrably harmful and does nothing to impact that spread of any virus.
Ideological musings and semantics gymnastics are not how actual problems in the real world get solved nor how humans obtain the actual knowledge to improve their own decision making.
Being addicted to a screen is not a “type” of poverty simply because you redefined the word in your own mind. Ignoring reality in one’s own head does nothing to change it. Redefining everything changes nothing. It’s a middle school mindset for those who enjoy drama and not much else.
Screen addiction is a problem, but trying to redefine it as a “type” of poverty does nothing to change the reality that actual poverty is terrible for the environment. It does nothing to expand opportunity. It doesn’t reemploy people fired over idiotic vax mandates. Screen addiction is also not actual poverty simply because one claims it is with semantics gymnastics in their own minds. All the refining does it create ideological and semantics based obstacles for developing and promoting policies to improve the actual world.
So, what IS poverty to you? What does it look like? What does it NOT look like? That's all I was asking. Specifics. I see much poverty around me, in a city of 400,000.
Well, extreme poverty - “At the World Bank, we take the information on basic needs collected from the 15 poorest countries and then we average them. That comes out to be about $1.90 per day per person, and that is what we call the global extreme poverty line.” The definition of poverty is “lack of the means of providing material needs or comforts.”
Each country and region defines a specific threshold for that area. Poverty is based on socioeconomic reality. It’s addressing material aspects of life, not addictions that are largely first world problems like too much screen time.
Being addicted to a screen may be bad, but the outcome is not the need to burn wood to cook dinner and heat your hut or containing yourself and local water with mercury because the only way to eat is illegally mining, or living in a community lacking modern sanitation and trash removal so human waste - of all types - ends up in the streams.
Poverty is a lack of economic means. Deciding any depravation of any type is a “type” of poverty is nothing more than mental gymnastics.
Thanks NCmom, for being willing to discuss poverty. Ahh, a definition of poverty is a “lack of the means of providing material needs or comforts.” Lets work with that. By that definition, more than 25,000? or more people in my city are living in poverty. $1.90, in my American city, might mean gathering 38 soda cans at a nickel a piece. A 'modern' city. Ahh, but they are just lazy and or crazy one might say. (I disagree in most cases). So they are living in poverty by choice? And that everyone who earns less than this $1.90 in the world is officially impoverished. A billionaire in the stock market is wiped out entirely by a market swing, and is now 'impoverished?'. Is poverty really the gap between what we expected or hoped the world to provide by our efforts, and what we are able to provide in reality? Our western eyes and minds put this word, poverty, onto whole nations. India, because of it's poverty perhaps, or just better leadership, did much better in the pandemic, because they rejected our death jabs in favor of some tried and true medicines. I think the World Bank actually knows quite a bit about creating it, poverty, by the way they define it. I do not think it is really about a dollar amount so much as about how we impose our will and judgement upon, and have destroyed, other cultures these last few hundred years.
The whole thing sickens me and has for years. to watch society become imprisoned in a box by conspiracy minded environmental activists was and is sickening to watch. Worse now are corporations are fully on board with destroying our society by making energy costly and non-abundant. The US has lost 3M barrels of oil per day since Biden took office. How did these energy idiots ever get control? We must not only sweep any energy idiots out of power, they can never hold power again. At the pinnacle is Greta. Anyone that worships at the alter of Greta should be put on a list and publicly shamed. Greta herself is but a pawn. All the puppet masters that used her should be called out.
Calling them environmental activists is giving into the woke misuse of language. The people promoting unworkable solutions and “green new deal” crap are political activists who aren’t remotely interested in the environment. Some are motivated because of the enormous and never ending financial boondoggles - wasting money on unworkable things that will never provide the solution can make the well connected enormously wealthy. Some are motivated by this desire to impoverish the west to creat a more “equitable” world. Some are motivated by needing a hysteria - how we go from BLM to Covid and mandates to war hysteria and intervention starving innocent people with sanctions sure to backfire horribly on our own economy.
Greta is a political pawn. ESG people are political people. Biden’s energy policy is based on the politics of hysteria and virtue signaling. None of that has anything to do with the actual environment.
Donated. Thank you for all you do to promote common sense solutions based in reality. I love the woods and have donated to ecological conservation and rehabilitation since I got my first job at 15. I’ve followed you for 2 decades since I was an outdoor adventure guide in undergrad and found myself going through a similar evolution on climate change. For the past 15 years at least I’ve found the “climate” activist to be destructive to both the natural environment and humanity. Keep up the good work!!! I wish more people would listen and actually care about pursuing solutions that work rather than narrative and policies that destroy.
Recently I determined that wind and solar electrical generation are nothing more than bridge technology to the solution for emission-less power. The shutdown of nuclear plants, such as in New York State, are criminally stupid moves. The French model of manufacturing two or three different models of nuclear power plants and then assembling them on-site is more of a solution that building wind farms......................
But it reads like a bit of a campaign promo for Hillary Clinton - and none too soon as the two Grifters-in-Chief just announced the resurrection of the "Clinton Global Initiative". Expect her to pursue the 2024 Dem nomination - through machinations inside the DNC (Joey will "bow out", Kamala will find something else to do, and Hillary will be annointed).
The Intercept or at least Fang is no friend of fracking if you read Fang's piece. Here is the truth about Hillary re fracking, per Fang: on the 2016 Campaign trail, she said nary a word favorable to fracking, indeed she seemed to align with the enviros against it. Prior to the 2016 campaign, when she did speak about it it was in private, highly compensated speeches (did I mention she is a grifter?) about European fracking, etc., she was the just-former US Secretary of State, not Secretary of State of Germany, of France, of the UK. Just another American telling folks in other countries how to run their countries. And she did so in secret, to well heeled audiences, not to the people of those European countries.
I am not sure how much Hillary should be "credited" with foreshadowing the need for Western European sources of gas (many, many folks slammed Germany for shutting its nukes and crash course in shutting coal energy) or for identifying Russia as a funding source for anti-fracking groups (soo prize, soo prize, soo prize as Gomer Pyle used to say). Of course, if a duplicitous, lying pol is what we need in a President, she's your man!
Michael - you write great stuff and I admire your willingness to stand against the tide. But there was no need to mention Clinton to bolster this piece. Unless ...
On energy and biotech HRC was solid. She was the first Dem in decades to embrace Nuclear Energy and she bucked the anti-fracking and anti-gmo movements that had crippled the west. She has many faults but on these issues she infuriated the left .
fracking is 70 years old. The anti-fracking and anti-gmo russian sposored hysteria went viral ~2005-present. Nobody seriously studying nuclear thinks Obama was pro-nuclear and your shill gambit doesn't work with intelligent people. Nuclear was financially crippled well before Obama was in office.
I would like to have Greta Thumperberg, AOC, Al Gore and the 97% of the Climate Change Scientists of the Barack Hussein Obama fame explain to me like I am a four year old why all the Climate Change Predictions over the past 50 years never took place. Right now the score is Climate Change Hysteria 0 and Climate Change Prediction Failure 50.
An article in Business Insider: "A Russian-Linked Company In Bermuda Is Funneling Millions To US Anti-Fracking Groups". One being Food & Water Watch. Also vehemently anti-nuclear. So Putin ain't just funding anti-fracking & anti-nuclear in Europe. Also Arab countries directly funded the anti-fracking movie Promised Land.
Thank you very much, Michael, for the Milton Friedman quote, and *especially* for the coupled concept of "our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.”
With no political science background, it was very much a slap-to-the-forehead moment for me . . . but of course!
Sad that it takes a war to get these ESG nutters sidelined. Happy that you’re correcting misconceptions about nuclear energy and promote the need for abundant, cheap, and reliable energy.
I appreciate the topics you focus on. The Russian/Ukraine disaster is at least opening some people's eyes to how much the world still needs fossil fuels for our daily lives... and we will for a long time to come. I support nuclear power. Australian John Anderson has an interesting talk with Prof Robin Batterham on the sizeable cost and infrastructure (using fossil fuels) involved in building the infrastructure needed to get to net zero.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oIkKb7FDNg&t=14s
Michael, your writing has blown up some of my pre-existing biases. As more and more "vindications" of all the bad-thinkers come to light, the reactions of the MSM and their followers will be interesting to see. I write about the human side of the nuts and bolts that you put a rachet to. I would be honored for a stop-by to see what falls out of my brain!
A ;very clear-eyed view of the problem, Mr. Shellenberger. Biden embarrassed himself today with yet another stupid sound byte, to wit that the leases are out there and not being used. They are not being used because the Green Monster, i.e., mindless environmentalism, is making the procuring of permits nearly impossible. To Greens, American lives don't matter.
It's sad that people are so against nuclear. I had my concerns when I was younger but have been much more open to it since then. One of the major reasons is you and your work.
And yet stupid short-sighted decision making re US energy continue. Our state (WA) currently in process of legislating to phase out all natural gas (the phase out starts in new commercial construction but will spread to other areas such as residential). We've already shut down dams and whatnot so might as well go over a cliff here. Absolutely no learning of the hard lessons now being experienced firsthand in Europe and now in US with virtue-signaling/middle-class-killing Bidenomic energy policies.
You remind me of the one eyed man in the land of the blind, Michael.
I bought five copies of your book "Apocalypse Never" and gave four to some of my very well educated friends.
Seems even well educated people can become blind to reality.
Only one of my friends read your book from front to back and agreed with me that your book contains information that should be shouted from the roof tops of modern college and university campuses.
Back in the 70s I worked for a mid-sized newspaper in Maine and wrote more than a score of articles about the hot topic of the day . . . our energy "crisis."
My managing editor was a fellow who exchanged the top position at Philadelphia's major daily for the more measured pace at the Bangor Daily News. He became a powerful force in terms of promoting in depth reporting in Maine.
Thus, he had convinced our publisher to let me take two months off from my normal duties to cover the latest crisis du jour.
I learned back then much of the information you are reporting today.
Like you, I started off as a young man worried about how polluted were the once pristine rivers and crystal clear skies in Maine.
I am now an old man who worries about the foibles that have overtaken our nation.
But I am glad to see a revival of voices in the wilderness. I pray that such voices will grow more powerful, Michael.
At some point we lost focus on reducing pollution, note 2 years and billions of tons of useless Covid trash, and became focused on externalities and hysterical fear of worst case scenarios not remotely based in reality while ignoring the very real and solvable crises impacting our environment and oceans.
I remember watching An Inconvenient Truth in my early 20’s when it came out and lamenting these people hijacked our very real pollution and air quality concerns yo create a tool of fear that was simply nonsense.
The best thing we can do is tell everyone to go watch that movie and compare to real world outcomes over the last 17 years. Nothing predicted has come close to happening. The politicians that demand our compliance buy beachfront homes. The billionaires that scold us for our SUVs continue to fly their private jets around the globe, and fuel their mega yachts with gas.
What saddens me is the drop in focus on pollution and efficiency that has been replaced by insane political “climate” stupidity.
Anyone who has ever traveled to a poor country can see nothing is worse for the environment and people than poverty.
Thank you for such a well written and accurate assessment of one of the foibles of our times, NCmom.
NCmom...I think one might expand that thought some...that since we evolved living in the world there was a time when our presence was not associated with poverty...perhaps meagerness, but all animals struggled.....and that historically cannot be called poverty, just how it was. What makes poverty? Is poverty when you are living in such a way that degrades the land around you in an unsustainable way? If so modern culture is mostly a poverty, even on the concept of 'garbage produced' alone. Is poverty dirt floors? (I think not necessarily) Is poverty living with your grandparents? (I think certainly not)
Is poverty not having a car (Hell no)...so, tell me, what is poverty? Isnt it when people are dependant on sources of income that have been removed, such as a farmer whose fields are burnt? Or denied a job because you are unvaxxed? Or anyone who is so obsessed about the plight of the world, they can hardly step away from the screen, such as myself...this all is a poverty, and we can end it with resolve to become self sufficient and wean ourselves away from the spectacle. It's been fun, don't get me wrong, but it's time to turn away from all this poverty.
Ideological musings and semantics gymnastics don’t solve problems. Redefining poverty doesn’t change that poorer people create more pollution in their daily lives simply trying to survive. Ideological musings are nothing more than that - ignoring reality and abdicating responsibility to improve reality by living in a fantasy world in one’s own head.
You redefining poverty in your own head has absolutely zero impact on poor people, improving our environment, or conserving nature.
It is how people convince themselves men give birth, or the way to fight racism is with more of it, or the way to expand opportunity to less advantaged kids is to remove all expectations and opportunities to learn how to accomplish something for themselves. It’s how academics get replaced with disproven ideological theories and we have a country masking toddlers even when it’s demonstrably harmful and does nothing to impact that spread of any virus.
Ideological musings and semantics gymnastics are not how actual problems in the real world get solved nor how humans obtain the actual knowledge to improve their own decision making.
Being addicted to a screen is not a “type” of poverty simply because you redefined the word in your own mind. Ignoring reality in one’s own head does nothing to change it. Redefining everything changes nothing. It’s a middle school mindset for those who enjoy drama and not much else.
Screen addiction is a problem, but trying to redefine it as a “type” of poverty does nothing to change the reality that actual poverty is terrible for the environment. It does nothing to expand opportunity. It doesn’t reemploy people fired over idiotic vax mandates. Screen addiction is also not actual poverty simply because one claims it is with semantics gymnastics in their own minds. All the refining does it create ideological and semantics based obstacles for developing and promoting policies to improve the actual world.
So, what IS poverty to you? What does it look like? What does it NOT look like? That's all I was asking. Specifics. I see much poverty around me, in a city of 400,000.
Well, extreme poverty - “At the World Bank, we take the information on basic needs collected from the 15 poorest countries and then we average them. That comes out to be about $1.90 per day per person, and that is what we call the global extreme poverty line.” The definition of poverty is “lack of the means of providing material needs or comforts.”
Each country and region defines a specific threshold for that area. Poverty is based on socioeconomic reality. It’s addressing material aspects of life, not addictions that are largely first world problems like too much screen time.
Being addicted to a screen may be bad, but the outcome is not the need to burn wood to cook dinner and heat your hut or containing yourself and local water with mercury because the only way to eat is illegally mining, or living in a community lacking modern sanitation and trash removal so human waste - of all types - ends up in the streams.
Poverty is a lack of economic means. Deciding any depravation of any type is a “type” of poverty is nothing more than mental gymnastics.
Thanks NCmom, for being willing to discuss poverty. Ahh, a definition of poverty is a “lack of the means of providing material needs or comforts.” Lets work with that. By that definition, more than 25,000? or more people in my city are living in poverty. $1.90, in my American city, might mean gathering 38 soda cans at a nickel a piece. A 'modern' city. Ahh, but they are just lazy and or crazy one might say. (I disagree in most cases). So they are living in poverty by choice? And that everyone who earns less than this $1.90 in the world is officially impoverished. A billionaire in the stock market is wiped out entirely by a market swing, and is now 'impoverished?'. Is poverty really the gap between what we expected or hoped the world to provide by our efforts, and what we are able to provide in reality? Our western eyes and minds put this word, poverty, onto whole nations. India, because of it's poverty perhaps, or just better leadership, did much better in the pandemic, because they rejected our death jabs in favor of some tried and true medicines. I think the World Bank actually knows quite a bit about creating it, poverty, by the way they define it. I do not think it is really about a dollar amount so much as about how we impose our will and judgement upon, and have destroyed, other cultures these last few hundred years.
The whole thing sickens me and has for years. to watch society become imprisoned in a box by conspiracy minded environmental activists was and is sickening to watch. Worse now are corporations are fully on board with destroying our society by making energy costly and non-abundant. The US has lost 3M barrels of oil per day since Biden took office. How did these energy idiots ever get control? We must not only sweep any energy idiots out of power, they can never hold power again. At the pinnacle is Greta. Anyone that worships at the alter of Greta should be put on a list and publicly shamed. Greta herself is but a pawn. All the puppet masters that used her should be called out.
Calling them environmental activists is giving into the woke misuse of language. The people promoting unworkable solutions and “green new deal” crap are political activists who aren’t remotely interested in the environment. Some are motivated because of the enormous and never ending financial boondoggles - wasting money on unworkable things that will never provide the solution can make the well connected enormously wealthy. Some are motivated by this desire to impoverish the west to creat a more “equitable” world. Some are motivated by needing a hysteria - how we go from BLM to Covid and mandates to war hysteria and intervention starving innocent people with sanctions sure to backfire horribly on our own economy.
Greta is a political pawn. ESG people are political people. Biden’s energy policy is based on the politics of hysteria and virtue signaling. None of that has anything to do with the actual environment.
Agree with you 100%
It is called politics
Donated. Thank you for all you do to promote common sense solutions based in reality. I love the woods and have donated to ecological conservation and rehabilitation since I got my first job at 15. I’ve followed you for 2 decades since I was an outdoor adventure guide in undergrad and found myself going through a similar evolution on climate change. For the past 15 years at least I’ve found the “climate” activist to be destructive to both the natural environment and humanity. Keep up the good work!!! I wish more people would listen and actually care about pursuing solutions that work rather than narrative and policies that destroy.
Thank you thank you thank you
I worked at Turkey point nuclear plant in the 1980s for a couple of years.
Despite some little overflow from the spent fuel pit, it’s really a relatively safe form of energy.
Recently I determined that wind and solar electrical generation are nothing more than bridge technology to the solution for emission-less power. The shutdown of nuclear plants, such as in New York State, are criminally stupid moves. The French model of manufacturing two or three different models of nuclear power plants and then assembling them on-site is more of a solution that building wind farms......................
Michael,
Good stuff for certain.
But it reads like a bit of a campaign promo for Hillary Clinton - and none too soon as the two Grifters-in-Chief just announced the resurrection of the "Clinton Global Initiative". Expect her to pursue the 2024 Dem nomination - through machinations inside the DNC (Joey will "bow out", Kamala will find something else to do, and Hillary will be annointed).
The Intercept or at least Fang is no friend of fracking if you read Fang's piece. Here is the truth about Hillary re fracking, per Fang: on the 2016 Campaign trail, she said nary a word favorable to fracking, indeed she seemed to align with the enviros against it. Prior to the 2016 campaign, when she did speak about it it was in private, highly compensated speeches (did I mention she is a grifter?) about European fracking, etc., she was the just-former US Secretary of State, not Secretary of State of Germany, of France, of the UK. Just another American telling folks in other countries how to run their countries. And she did so in secret, to well heeled audiences, not to the people of those European countries.
I am not sure how much Hillary should be "credited" with foreshadowing the need for Western European sources of gas (many, many folks slammed Germany for shutting its nukes and crash course in shutting coal energy) or for identifying Russia as a funding source for anti-fracking groups (soo prize, soo prize, soo prize as Gomer Pyle used to say). Of course, if a duplicitous, lying pol is what we need in a President, she's your man!
Michael - you write great stuff and I admire your willingness to stand against the tide. But there was no need to mention Clinton to bolster this piece. Unless ...
On energy and biotech HRC was solid. She was the first Dem in decades to embrace Nuclear Energy and she bucked the anti-fracking and anti-gmo movements that had crippled the west. She has many faults but on these issues she infuriated the left .
fracking is 70 years old. The anti-fracking and anti-gmo russian sposored hysteria went viral ~2005-present. Nobody seriously studying nuclear thinks Obama was pro-nuclear and your shill gambit doesn't work with intelligent people. Nuclear was financially crippled well before Obama was in office.
I would like to have Greta Thumperberg, AOC, Al Gore and the 97% of the Climate Change Scientists of the Barack Hussein Obama fame explain to me like I am a four year old why all the Climate Change Predictions over the past 50 years never took place. Right now the score is Climate Change Hysteria 0 and Climate Change Prediction Failure 50.
An article in Business Insider: "A Russian-Linked Company In Bermuda Is Funneling Millions To US Anti-Fracking Groups". One being Food & Water Watch. Also vehemently anti-nuclear. So Putin ain't just funding anti-fracking & anti-nuclear in Europe. Also Arab countries directly funded the anti-fracking movie Promised Land.
Russia Today and Sputnik were the largest sources of anti-gmo propaganda as well. Russia kneecapped energy and agriculture in US and Europe.
Thank you very much, Michael, for the Milton Friedman quote, and *especially* for the coupled concept of "our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.”
With no political science background, it was very much a slap-to-the-forehead moment for me . . . but of course!
Sad that it takes a war to get these ESG nutters sidelined. Happy that you’re correcting misconceptions about nuclear energy and promote the need for abundant, cheap, and reliable energy.
I appreciate the topics you focus on. The Russian/Ukraine disaster is at least opening some people's eyes to how much the world still needs fossil fuels for our daily lives... and we will for a long time to come. I support nuclear power. Australian John Anderson has an interesting talk with Prof Robin Batterham on the sizeable cost and infrastructure (using fossil fuels) involved in building the infrastructure needed to get to net zero.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oIkKb7FDNg&t=14s
Michael, your writing has blown up some of my pre-existing biases. As more and more "vindications" of all the bad-thinkers come to light, the reactions of the MSM and their followers will be interesting to see. I write about the human side of the nuts and bolts that you put a rachet to. I would be honored for a stop-by to see what falls out of my brain!
thanks
Ric
A ;very clear-eyed view of the problem, Mr. Shellenberger. Biden embarrassed himself today with yet another stupid sound byte, to wit that the leases are out there and not being used. They are not being used because the Green Monster, i.e., mindless environmentalism, is making the procuring of permits nearly impossible. To Greens, American lives don't matter.
Amazing how many lies are promoted by this administration and how many people in our nation believe those lies. Your comment was spot on. Thank you.
the fracking industry went bankrupt in 2020? wow.
It's sad that people are so against nuclear. I had my concerns when I was younger but have been much more open to it since then. One of the major reasons is you and your work.
And yet stupid short-sighted decision making re US energy continue. Our state (WA) currently in process of legislating to phase out all natural gas (the phase out starts in new commercial construction but will spread to other areas such as residential). We've already shut down dams and whatnot so might as well go over a cliff here. Absolutely no learning of the hard lessons now being experienced firsthand in Europe and now in US with virtue-signaling/middle-class-killing Bidenomic energy policies.
You could argue that the second-most responsible person for the war in the Ukraine, after Putin, is Greta Thunberg (poor thing).